Judaka wrote: ↑
January 21st, 2019, 8:28 pm
No, I didn't state that you shouldn't argue against flogging for that reason. You posited some comparisons between prison and flogging without any hard evidence supporting any of your claims, I can't just accept them at face value.
How can flogging be a greater deterrent if people prefer it as an option? It doesn't make much sense to me. You also say those who were wronged would feel more satisfied with flogging over prison, this again, doesn't really seem to make sense given that those who were wronged (when seeking vengeance) should want a worse punishment over a lighter one.
That is what you said and you just did t again. I have already nuanced it clearly. It behooves no 'hard evidence', as you say, because it is as clear as can be. The mistake in the OP was to compare crimes that would get a person in prison for 10 years with 1 simple flogging. If we compare 3 months in prison or a severe flogging that lasts for 1 hour 3 days in a row, I bet most people will choose 3 months in jail. You were and are ignoring that nuance because it contradicts the OP.
The irony is not lost on me, that this should be a real example of your "petitio principii", anybody would pay a small fine to avoid being flogged, how is that an argument in favour of flogging over a fine? Now I don't know exactly how much of a deterrent flogging is compared to other punishments, have no way of knowing. Just to make sure we're on the same page, flogging I'm not talking about with a stick, I'm talking about a whip that going to draw blood and probably leave scars, extremely painful. You haven't stated an actual crime yet but any crime that would be punished with a fine would be completely senseless to also consider flogging.
Nuancing is important in this topic. Depending on the what punishments you imagine
, flogging is either more desirable or less. So a bigger deterrent or a smaller one. Given that in most countries corporeal punishments are abolished, I think there is no current example to give, so all examples are thought experiments
. We can imagine a situation where a good flogging is a bigger deterrent and in that way we can discuss if we think it could
be more effective or humane.
Just because the government has the power to punish people severely for small crimes, under the pretence of deterrents and crime reduction, that doesn't mean they should. Not to mention, recidivism is a complicated topic, deterrents are also complicated. You can make assumptions but at least for my part, logic doesn't apply to crime as well as you might think. Makes sense only when you think about it a bit more.
I agree. Logic does apply to crimes if we understand that people in a tight spot start showing a stronger and stronger narcissism. It is a term in psycho-analysis that explains a self-defense system in the human feelings/thoughts. When this takes place, a form of fight or flight feeling becomes dominant, which makes decision very much about now. People forget about what will happen years from now when they feel in danger. Crimes often have the aspect that in very short term reasoning, it is a good idea, but in long term reasoning, it isn't. A tangible example is a business deal. I sell my produce for an unfair price and am therefore benefited more. But in the long run, I lose my customers, making me benefit less. The same thing applies to people who refuse to pay. Or beating someone in order to gain something. In the long run that person will never want to help the beater again, etc.
We also can't really compare flogging in a historical context to modern-day punishments which medieval governments had no access to or ability to enforce. There's no sex offender registry, you can't enforce bans on going near places/people, you can't afford to incarcerate large numbers of people. Also, medieval governments were led by ignorant, ineffective rulers in comparison to modern-day, the whole comparison is a silly imo.
There are actually logs of crimes and sexual crimes were among them. The punishments were not so high, if I remember correctly. Banishments also happened, but I think that is not what you mean. Prohibiting someone to go near a person or a place is equally difficult today. In The Netherlands, at least, the news reports on serious crimes sometimes where the criminal was not allowed near a person but repeatedly kept approaching that person up until a horrible ending. Anyway, since data is limited, we should stick with the thought experiments.
One more thing: There were many great rulers that were very efficient in history. I think, if we compare leadership capabilities, the current generation has the shortest end of the deal! But that might be my personal opinion only.
Alias wrote: ↑
January 21st, 2019, 8:39 pm
Whatever you call justice, revenge is one of the things the justice system attempts to prevent
The justice system tries to prevent what is called 'own direction': people exacting their own (often misguided) revenge by exacting revenge for them. If you do not believe me, try to imagine a system where criminals are not punished. Innocent people will get more and more upset and will start exacting their own revenge. Think of posse's, witch hunts and revolutions. They all have the same cause.
The punishment, whether by pain or loss of freedom or some combination, is is administered by the state. In most crimes, the principal/primary/most wronged victim is not the state but an individual. The state is only a secondary or incidental victim in that its rules have been broken and its order disrupted. For this alone, the state entitles itself to administer some form of retribution. Thus, if the principal victim does exact revenge, the state inflict upon him the same punishment that it would on a criminal.
This might be what someone is telling you, but that is not why punishment exists. If I beat up my neighbor, the state is not wronged in any way.